1

Design Spans – Underhand Cut and Fill Mining

Presented at 107th CIM-AGM Toronto, April 2005

Rimas Pakalnis, Cristian Caceres, Kathryn Clapp, Mario Morin

University of British Columbia

Tom Brady, Ted Williams

Spokane Research Laboratory, NIOSH

Wilson Blake
Consultant

Mary MacLaughlin
Montana Tech, University of Montana

Abstract
This paper describes a focus of work presently being conducted at the Rock Mechanics Research Group at the University
of British Columbia. The underhand method under consolidated fill ensures a high recovery under an engineered back
that is comprised of cemented rock fill and/or cemented paste fill. This method of mining is generally necessary either
due to a weak rock mass comprising the immediate back and/or high induced back stresses. A major concern in the
design of sill mats is the loading and strengths associated with the overlying sill mat. This paper reviews past practice
coupled with present observations and measurements from over ten(10) mines throughout North America. It outlines
areas of concern in terms of design requirements.

1. Introduction

Backfilling in North America has been practised since the turn of the century. Souza et al. (2003) has summarized the
advancements in backfill with the introduction of hydraulic fills in the 1950’s and the addition of cement in the 1960’s.
This coupled with cemented rock and paste fills being introduced in the 1980’ and 1990’s respectively resulted in the
implementation of mining methods that require extraction under a consolidated back largely comprised of fill rather than
timbered mats/cables (Marcinyshyn, 1996). The increased use of consolidated fills in the late 1990’s to present under
engineered conditions with a high degree of reproducibility in terms of strengths and predicted behaviours has enabled
man-entry methods such as underhand cut and fill to be implemented under greater controlled spans resulting in a safe
and economic alternative to
Design Requirements conventional cut and fill mining, (Mah,
2003). A database of twelve (12)
• Vertical Loading Backfill underhand cut and fill operations was
ic
ism

• Stope Geometry Influences

σv compiled as part of this project through
Se

• Lateral Loading mine visits. The operations were

• Failure Modes
• Strength Properties σh
• Fill Placement
• Seismic Effects
Open Stope
• Support Implications
• Stope Closure
• Other (Air Gaps/Cold Joints)
located throughout North America and
h summarized in Table 1.
Sill Mat Pillar
Span - Cohesion The placement of consolidated fill
- Friction Angle
either cemented rock fill or paste
-Tensile Strength
- Density
requires one to understand the overall
β - Modulus, Poisson Ratio factors affecting design. Figure 1
graphically summarizes some of the
parameters that are being investigated
in terms of their implication on
developing a design span enabling man

Figure 1: Mining underneath consolidated backfill.

 2
entry access. A sill for this study is defined as a consolidated layer of previously placed fill immediately above the
mine opening that is being excavated. This sill may be comprised of one large vertical height placed by bulk mining as
shown in Figure 2a or by single lifts as placed by conventional drift and fill and/or underhand cut and fill as shown in
Figure 2b. The major difference is that in Figure 2a one is largely operating remotely from the immediate filled back,
whereas in Figure 2b one is mining by man-entry methods. This necessitates that the factor of safety for the man entry be
substantially greater than the non-entry approach.

PREVIOUSLY
BACKFILLED ~3m LIFT

10m + Backfill

CRF Sill Mat

Pillar
10m +

a) Longhole mining under a cemented rock b) Underhand cut and fill under
fill sill mat (Caceres, 2005) a paste back.

Figure 2: Mining under a consolidated back.

2. Design Constraints

Figure 1 shows the factors that have to be accounted for in terms of mining under an engineered back. These will be
outlined in this paper from a general perspective with focus on the analytical, numerical assessment of span and applied
loading conditions.

2.1 Design Load

A critical factor is estimating the design loads onto the sill mat. A recently completed MASC thesis by Caceres
(2005) employing the Musselwhite mine of Placer Dome as a case study had looked at the loading conditions that exist
on a cemented rock fill mat as shown schematically in Figure 2a. Knowing the loads is critical to determining the
strength required of the sill mat for the given stope geometry. Under-estimating can cause a premature failure of the sill
mat once mining exposes the mat whereas overestimating can result in unnecessary expense due to the cost of the cement
in place. Knowing the vertical loading is not a trivial solution as many factors affect the overall loading conditions as
evident from the many theoretical derivations that are available as per Janssen (1895), Terzaghi et al.(1996), Reimbert
(1976) and Blight (1984) all of which have significant assumptions in terms of coefficient of lateral earth pressure “K” as
detailed by Marcinyshyn (1996). The value for “k” describes the ratio between the horizontal and vertical stresses in the
fill and indirectly the ability of the degree of load transfer by arching. When fill is placed initially, very little shear
resistance is mobilized through grain interaction, the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko). Subsequent placement of
fill results in the fill mass to settle and compact, increasing the shear resistance and transfer load to the abutments
through arching. As mining underneath the sill pillar progresses, a void is created toward which the fill mass will tend to
move if unconsolidated with transfer of vertical stresses laterally through arching. This condition is described by the
passive earth pressure coefficient (Kp) where full shear resistance is mobilized. This is analogous to classical
embankment theory where the walls are moving into the fill. The effect of K employing individual fill load formulaes is
shown in Figure 3a. The analytical methods shown in Figure 3a assume vertical stope walls which is generally a
conservative estimate of vertical loading as shown by Caceres (2005). The typical geometry was modelled employing
FLAC2D (Itasca, 2005) which did not have the constraints the analytical methods had in terms of ‘K” and stope
inclination. An analytical approximation as shown by eqn. 1 was derived by Caceres (2005) relating the numerical
simulation to an equivalent relationship as shown in Figure 3b.
 3
Vertical Stress Comparison
Vertical Stress Comparison Analytical vs. Numerical Modeling

0.900 0.45

Assuming: Mitchell 0.40

0.800
- Density of 2.0 t/m3

Vertical Stress σ yy (MPa)

- 90deg stope dip 0.35
0.700
yy - 37deg friction angle
(M
Pa
0.600 - ν = 0.29 0.30

) 0.25
σ 0.500
Ve Flac Janssen
rti 0.20
0.400 Reimbert
ca
l 0.15
St 0.300
re Blight 0.10
ss 0.200 Analytical Equation
0.05
0.100 Numerical Modeling
0.00
0.000 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18.
Stope Dip Angle (deg)
Stope Span (m)

a) Vertical stress versus stope span b) Analytical versus numerical derivation

using analytical solutions from different for different stope inclinations.
methods.
Figure 3: Estimation of vertical loading onto sill mat.

Eqn. 1:
⎛ γ ⋅L ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⋅ K ⋅ tan(φ ) ⋅ z ⎞⎤
σ y ( z ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ sin 2 ( β ) ⋅ ⎢1 − exp⎜⎜ − ⎟⎥
⎝ 2 ⋅ K ⋅ tan(φ ) ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ L ⋅ sin 2 ( β ) ⎟⎠⎦
Where:
− L = Span of the stope
− z = Height of rockfill
− K = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure ~ 1.4Sin2( φ) - 2Sin ( φ) + 1
− γ = Rockfill’s unit weight
− φ = Rockfill’s friction angle
− β = Stope dip angle

10
3(hi) The above was derived for cemented rock fill, however, the analytical
solution would be similar to that of paste as the input parameters would
9
define the loading conditions.
8 4

2 2.3 Failure Mechanism

8 The methodology of span design under consolidated fill is complex as

6 12
3(low)
9 many factors control the overall stability as shown in Figure 1. The
ROCKFILL 5 failure modes and combination thereof must be analysed with respect to
11
10 the placed fill, stope geometry, loading conditions, seismic affects, stope
1
HYDRAULIC
closure, and support placement as well as other factors that are due to
7
7 filling practises such as cold joints and gaps between successive lifts
7 7 among others. This paper employs analytical, numerical and empirical
12% 14% tools to attempt to provide an initial tool for the operator for design. The
PASTE
database of underhand stopes observed by the author is shown in Table 1
which is comprised of twelve(12) operations which include seven
cemented rock fill and five having paste within the immediate back.
Figure 4: Backfill strength vs binder
content (Table 1). The unconfined compressive strength is typically the parameter employed
to benchmark the overall stability of the immediate back. Figure 4 shows
the compiled database (Table 1) of backfill unconfined compressive strengths adapted from Souza et al.(2003).
 4

The design methods (Table 1) all employed a form of limit equilibrium analysis coupled with modelling. The failure
modes are summarized by Mitchell (1991) and shown in Figure 5.
Uncemented
rockfill

Caving Failure Flexural Failure

σv

Sill Mat Shear Shear

σc Rotation σt
τ τ σc d
Caving

L
2 ⋅ (σ t + σ c )
2
⎛L⎞
⎜ ⎟ >
Open Stope
β
L ⋅γ > 8 ⋅σ t π ⎝d ⎠ σ v + d ⋅γ

Sliding Failure Rotational Failure

a) Schematic showing typical failure modes

after Mitchell, 1991.
Where:
− L = Span of the stope
− γ = Rockfill’s unit weight
− st = Tensile strength of the cemented sill ⎛ τt ⎞ ⎛d ⎞ d 2 ⋅σ t
− d = Thickness of sill (σ v + d ⋅ γ ) > 2 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (σ v + d ⋅ γ ) >
⎝ sin ( β ) ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠
2
L ⋅ ( L − d ⋅ cot( β )) ⋅ sin 2 ( β )
− sc = Horizontal confinement (assumed zero – conservative)
− sv = Vertical stress due loading above sill mat
− Tf = Shear strength along fill/wall contact b) Limit equilibrium analysis of typical failure modes adapted from Mitchell, 1991.
− β = Stope dip angle

Figure 5: Limit equilibrium criteria adapted from Mitchell, 1991.

Flexural instability was found to be most critical in the absence of rotational instability and closure stresses (sc) which
have to be evaluated separately.
DESIGN OF UNDERCUT SILL SPANS Stone (1993) had concluded that for
cemented rock fills that crushing,
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (MPa)

caving, sliding are generally negated

when the sill thickness exceeds 0.5 x
SILL

span , absence of closure stresses and

HICK

2b 2c the unconfined compressive strength

L
L
3m T

SI

of the cemented rock fill is greater

L

K
SIL

IC

LL
TH

a
SI SIL
L
than 1.5MPa and that rotational
ICK

K K
10

IC IC
TH

TH
m
TH
20
m instability where kinematically
5m

15
possible has to be analysed
separately. Figure 6 shows the
database that has been compiled in
Table 1 and plotted onto a stability
chart adapted from Stone(1993) and
developed for the design of sills with
vertical sidewalls with a Factor of
MINIMUM SPAN WIDTH (m) Safety of two. The chart is based
upon flexural instability employing
UNDERHAND CUT AND FILL OPERATIONS
fixed beam analysis with surcharge
loading after Eqn. 1. It shows the
Figure 6: Stability chart for the design of undercut sills with vertical unconfined compressive strength
sidewalls with a FS of 2. Chart is based upon fixed beam bending failure required (FS=2) for a given sill
thickness and span exposed and
related to actual field observations. Generally the mine data was found to be more conservative than the required for a
Factor of Safety of 2.0. This may reflect the quality control requirements at individual operations, along with other
factors such as seismicity and stope geometry among others as shown in Figure 1.

The limit equilibrium approach shown in Figure 5 was simulated by Caceres(2005) employing FLAC2D models (finite
difference code) for a given value of cohesion, span and stope dip. The cemented rock fill properties assigned are for a
Mohr-Coulomb type of material with strain-softening behaviour where integrity is lost after 1.5% strain (Swan and
Brummer, 2001). The resultant mode of failure was analysed for 90o to 75o dip stopes with cohesion on the hanging wall
 5
contact varying from zero to maximum (cemented rock fill cohesion) as shown in Figure 7 for the 75o stope dip. The
analytical approach after Mitchell assumes no hanging wall cohesion for the rotational instability and this was found to
result in a high degree of conservatism. The FLAC2D simulation shows the failure mode that results for a given stope
span, sill height and cohesive strength for various assumptions on wall friction. The design curves have been developed
for cemented rock fill operations, however, they are largely dependent upon material strength characteristics which are
14.0
input into the model. This method
does not have the constraints
Minimum Sill Mat Vertical Height (m)

STABLE 12.0
S

S 10.0 σ associated with the limit equilibrium v

S
2b
S techniques shown in Figure 5 as the
12m
8.0
S
S
S
S τ =0% h relationships have been derived t

8 S 4c Rc
6.0
10m Span through numerical simulation of
S 8m
Rc Rc 4.0
6m 75
modeled conditions. The critical o
Rc
FAIL Rc Rc
parameters identified in Figure 7 do
2.0
HW contact
0.00
cohesion value
not incorporate a factor of safety as
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0
0.75 1.00 1.25 they are identified in the numerical
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
Cohesion (MPa)
model by being either stable or
a)Sill mat stability for 75o – No strength on HW (τt = 0%) unstable. Therefore one must apply a
10.0 safety factor on the input parameters
S 9.0 to ensure an adequate design factor of
Minimum Sill Mat Vertical Height (m)

STABLE
8.0
σ safety is incorporated. The cemented
7.0 v
S S
rock fill database shown in Table 1
6.0

2b R Rc
12m
5.0
τ =50% h was overlain onto Figure 7. The type t
S

Rc 4c 10m4.0
Span of failure occurring is indicated for
Rc 8 Rc
Rc
R Rc
8m3.0
75
each curve by either “S” for sliding, o
Rc
FAIL
Rc Rc
Rc
6m2.0 “Rc” for rotational-crushing, “Rb”
1.0
HW contact
cohesion value
0.50 for rotational-breaking, and “F” for
0.75 1.00 1.25
0.0
0.75 1.00 1.25 flexural failure modes. The degree of
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
Cohesion (MPa)
cohesion at the wall contact allows
b) Sill mat stability for 75o – 50% sill mat strength on HW (τt = 50%) flexibility in design depending upon
at different Stope Spans
6.0 the quality of fill placement. It must
Rc be recognized that based upon the
Minimum Sill Mat Vertical Height

5.0

S σ cases identified in Table 1 and plotted v

Rc 4.0

2b
STABLE onto Figure 7 that the depth of mat
Rc Rc τ =100 h t
largely corresponds to 50%-100%
(m)

Rc 3.0 %
Rc 12m Span
Rb
8 Rc
4c
Rb
2.0
Rb 10m
cohesion on the hangingwall contact.
Rb Rb 8m
Rb
75 o
Rb 6m
1.0
FAIL Rb

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

HW contact 2.3 Other Factors
cohesion value
0.0
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75

The above attempts to outline a Cohesion (MPa)

methodology for span design. It is

c) Sill mat stability for 75o – 100% sill mat strength on HW (τt = 100%)
critical that the method be calibrated
for individual sites, incorporating
Figure 7: Sill mat stability as derived from numerical modeling. Factor of critical factors such as seismic
Safety >1.0 conditions, installed support, and
methods of fill placement as these all
play a significant role in ensuring a safe exposed operating span. A major benefit of mining under paste is the mitigation
of the hazards posed by bursting (Blake et al, 2004).

3.0 Seismic Case History – Managing Rockbursts at Hecla’s Lucky Friday Mine, Mullan Idaho

The following have been compiled by Blake and Hedley, 2003. Its importance is that the underhand mining as practised
at Lucky Friday (Mine #12 in Table 1) is the first to incorporate paste to mitigate burst damage and the method has been
adopted at mines throughout North America such as the Red Lake Mine in Ontario (Mah et al., 2003) and the Stillwater
Mine in Montana (Jordan et al., 2003).

Hecla initiated overhand cut-and-fill mining on the Silver Vein at the Lucky Friday Mine in the late 1950’s. By the mid
1960’s mining had progressed down to the 3050 level (~930m below surface), and the mining geometry consisted of
long, flat-backed stopes, all at the same elevation, being carried up from two or more levels simultaneously. A burst
 6
prone sill pillar was formed when mining from below would approach the overlying mined out level. As a result of a
double rockburst fatality in 1969, the mining front was changed to a “centre lead stope” geometry. In 1973 the first
computer controlled seismic monitoring system was installed, and pillar distressing was routinely carried out when a sill
pillar was mined to approximately 12m (thickness).

This rockburst strategy allowed mining to proceed safely down to below the 4660 level ( ~1420m below surface). In
1982 the mining front entered a highly burst prone formation, and serious rockburst problems were encountered. As a
result of rockburst fatalities in 1984 and 1985, Hecla initiated an experimental underhand cut-and-fill stope along the east
abutment of the mine. After another rockburst fatality in March 1986 Hecla realized that it was not possible to manage
their rockburst problem with overhand cut-and-fill mining. Production mining at the Lucky Friday was stopped in April
1986, and plans were made to
convert the entire mine to
Tie Wire attached to
mechanized underhand cut-and-fill
6ft Dywidag
Dywidag bolt and to
wall mining geometry, which they
Bolt (typ)

named LFUL – Lucky Friday

underhand longwall. The key
features of this mining method
PLAN were that pillars would never be
formed, and the mining would be
Chainlink Fencing over
plates carried out under a stable,
engineered, paste type fill back.
6” Prep muck
3D VIEW maximum

Production mining at Lucky Friday

resumed in October 1987
incorporating the above changes.
VERTICAL VIEW Despite increased rates of
rockbursting, as well as larger
Figure 8: Lucky Friday Mat
magnitude bursts (Ml 4.1),
underhand cut-and-fill mining at
the Lucky Friday has been carried out without any serious rockburst injuries or fatalities, and with greatly increased
productivity at significantly reduced costs. Underhand mining has allowed Hecla to very effectively manage their
rockburst problem. The miners have a higher sense of security working below an engineered back. Management has said
that the mine would likely have never reopened after 1986 had it not been for the all the benefits of LFUL mining.

Finally, the paste backfill is only very rarely damaged by the effects of nearby rockbursts. The only burst induced fill
failure at the mine occurred in 1991 during mining of a remnant pillar where a 3.5Ml burst caused the wall to fail and in
turn undercutting the past back which collapsed. The peak particle velocity at the hangingwall/fill mat was
approximately 1m/s. Despite closure from ongoing mining, as well as closure and shock loading from the burst, the fill
was not rubbilized as might have been expected.

4.0 Other Observations

The focus of the present research is towards mining under paste, however, a much larger database of information exists
for mining under cemented rock fill as derived from the Nevada database of mines operating within a weak rock mass
(Brady et al., 2005) and the database shown in Table 1 reflects this. The limit equilibrium methods are similar whether
one is working with a cemented rock beam or a consolidated paste. The differences lie in the resultant strengths
associated with each as shown in Figure 4 where the cemented rock fills exhibit strengths (UCS) generally in excess of
two to three times that of the cemented pastes. This is largely due to cement being able to be more evenly mixed with the
larger aggregate as compared to the paste which is generally between (60% passing) 20 microns (fine) to 100 microns
(coarse) for Mine #1 and Mine #12 in Table 1. The typical cemented rock fill optimum aggregate size is 50 000 microns
or 5cm (2inch) for the database analysed.

The cohesion for paste fills was estimated as being 0.25 times the unconfined compressive strength based upon an
internal angle of friction (f )of 30o and derived from the Mohr-Coulomb relationship where the “Unconfined
compressive strength = 2*Cohesion* (cos f) /(1-sin f)”. A value of internal angle of friction of 35-40o was employed
for the rock fills.
 7
The tensile strength was generally derived from the unconfined compressive strength for consolidated fills and a value of
“0.1 x UCS =Tensile Strength” was employed (Jaeger et al., 1976).

CLOSURE METER
A Young’s modulus for paste ranged from 0.6GPa
to 3MPa (laboratory) for 10% binder and these
AIR GAP ~0.3m values were field calibrated (Williams et al., 2004)
to reflect field data through a combination of earth
pressure cells embedded within a paste stope at the
Lucky Friday mine (Mine #12) and the closure
recorded and related by the relationship “Stress =
Modulus x Strain” where the strain was measured
by means of closure meters divided by the stope
EARTH PRESSURE CELL width. This is shown in Figure 9 with the resultant
closure/load history. It is interesting to note that
the loads upon reaching 4MPa (UCS) showed
yielding of the paste. The closure at the Lucky
Friday was in excess of 25mm. The rock mass of
b) Resultant load/closure the wall contact was under 50% (RMR76). Mine #1
measurements.
showed closure values of under 10mm at similar
a) Vertical section through instrumented depths, with the wall contact having an RMR76 =
stope at Lucky Friday Mine. 75%. Both sites are considered to be burst prone.
A further observation by Tesarik et al., 2005 was
Figure 9: Instrumented underhand stope at Lucky Friday that the earth pressure cells are significantly
(Williams et al., 2001) affected by the paste cure temperature which can
reach 40o C with stresses measured in excess of 69kPa due to the temperature difference. The vertical pressures that arise
for a 3m pour height of paste fill would approach fill pressures of 0.02MPa/m of pour height (SG=2.0) or 60kPa of
vertical pressure which is largely equivalent to the temperature correction on the earth pressure cell. The horizontal
pressure would be a fraction of this. It is important to recognize the correction factor can be equivalent to the absolute
value measured.

5.0 Conclusions

Mining under consolidated fills is becoming competitive to conventional cut and fill mining as increased spans and
productivities are realized through reduced placement of ground support and more control on the mine cycle due to
working under an engineered back. This requires a thorough understanding of the mechanism of support that one is
relying upon which is the consolidated fill immediately above. The fill may be supported in terms of conventional bolts
and screen in order to counter “cold joints” that may develop in the fill, account for variability in fill quality control
and/or increase the overall factor of safety required due to seismic events in the close proximity. This requires an
understanding of the stabilization affect of the consolidated fill and the mine environment that it is placed within.
Through the gathering of site data, modelling of behaviour either analytically and/or numerically coupled with
observation and measurement one will be able to advance the overall design criteria to provide a safe and cost effective
workplace.

6.0 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Goldcorp, Barrick, Newmont, Placer Dome, Cameco, Hecla, Coeur d’Alene Mines,
Stillwater and NIOSH for assisting in the overall project and providing direction. Particular thanks to NSERC, NIOSH
and individual mining companies for providing funding of the graduate research that allows industry related research to
be conducted.

7.0 List of References

BLAKE, W. and HEDLEY, D.G.F. 2003. Rockbursts: Case Studies from North American Hard-Rock Mines. SME
Publication, 119pp.
 8
BLIGHT, G. 1984. Soil Mechanic Principles in Underground Mining. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110,
No.5, 11pp.

BRADY, T., PAKALNIS, R. and Clark, L. 2005. Design in Weak Rock Masses: Nevada Underground Mining
Operations. SME-AGM, Salt Lake City, 9pp.

CACERES, C. 2005. Effect of Backfill on Longhole Open Stoping, MASc Thesis, Mining Engineering, University of
British Columbia, 139pp.

GRAHAM S. and BRUMMER, R.K. 2001. Backfill Design for Deep, Underhand Drift-and-Fill Mining. Proceedings of
the 7th International Symposium of Mining with Backfill. USA, 12pp.

ITASCA, 2005. Software - FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua), Minneapolis, Minnesota.

JAEGAR, J.C. and COOK N.G.W. 1976. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. Chapman and Hall Publishers, p190-191.

JANSSEN, H.A. 1895. Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin,
Germany, 39(35), 1045–1049.

JORDAN, J., LANGSTON, R.KIRSTEN, H., MARJERISON, J, JACOBS, C., and STAHLBUSH, F. 2003. Underhand
Cut and Fill Mining at the Stillwater Mine, 105th AGM-CIM, Montreal, 18pp.

MAH, P., TESSIER,M. and CLELLAND, J. 2003. Mining Methods at Goldcorp’s Red Lake Mine, 16th CIM Mine
Operators’ Conference, Saskatoon, 22pp.

MARCINYSHYN, K. 1996. Sill Mat Design for Narrow Vein Underground Mines. MASc Thesis, Mining Engineering,
University of British Columbia, 151pp.

MITCHELL, R.J., 1991. Sill Mat Evaluation Using Centrifuge Models . Mining Science and Technology, Elsevier
Science Publisher B.V., 13: pp. 301-313.

REIMBERT, M. & A., 1976. SILOS Theory and Practice, Trans Tech Publications, Vol. 1, No 3, p. 250.

SOUZA, E.De, ARCHIBALD, J.F., and DIRIGE,A.P. 2003. Economics and Perspectives of Underground Backfill
Practices in Canadian Mines. 105th AGM-CIM, Montreal, 15pp.

STONE, D.M.R. 1993. The Optimization of Mix Designs for Cemented Rockfill. Minefill 93. SAIMM, Johannesburg,
pp. 249-253.

TERAZGHI, K., PECK,R.B., and MESRI.,G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Wiley and Sons, New
York, 549pp.

TESARIK, D.R., SEYMOUR, J.B., WILLIAMS, T.J., MARTIN, L.A. and JONES, F.M. 2005. Temperature Corrections
to Earth Pressure Cells Embedded in Cemented Backfill, RI in Progress, 59pp.

WILLIAMS, T.J., DENTON, D.K., LARSON, M.K., RAINS,R.L., SEYMOUR, J.B. and TESERIK, D.R.
Geomechanics of Reinforced Cemented Backfill in an Underhand Stope at the Lucky Friday Mine. RI 9655, NIOSH
(SRL), 18pp.
 Table 1: Database of Underhand Cut and Fill Operations

UNDERHAND CUT AND FILL MINING UNDER CEMENTED FILL 9

SPAN SILL THICKNESS UCS COMMENTS
MINE %BINDER
(m) (m) (MPa)

1 10 6.1 3 2 PASTE

2a 6.5 7.6 4.6 5.5 CRF

2b 8% 9.1 4.6 6.9 CRF Design
2c 8% 21 4.6 6.9 Mined Remote - No Cave
2" Minus Aggregate
Go Under a Minimum of 14days
Wall CRF 5-6% Binder
Jam Tight to Back/Steep

Go Under in 14Days(9MPa UCS)

3 7 3 3 4-11 CRF (4MPa Design)
UCS is 11MPa (28 DAY)

4a 9 13.7 4 8.3 CRF Test Panel

4b 9 3.7 3 8.3 CRF Drift & Fill
4c 9 7.3 3 8.3 CRF Panel

5 7 2.7 3 3.4 CRF

6 6.75 4.9 4.3 4.8 CRF

Go Under in 28 Days
0.7
7a 10 1.8 2.7 0.3 PASTE (FS=1.5)
7b 2.4 2.7 0.5 Go Under in 7 Days - 28 Days
7c 3 2.7 0.7
7d 3.7 2.7 1 (5% binder - 0.5MPa UCS 28D)
7e 4.3 2.7 1.4 (7% binder - 0.7Mpa UCS 28D)
7f 4.9 2.7 1.8 (10% binder - 1MPa UCS 28D)
7g 5.5 2.7 2.3 (12% binder - 1.2MPa UCS 28D)
7h 6.1 2.7 2.9

8 7 4.6-6.1 4.6 5.5 CRF

9 10 5 5 4.45 CRF

10 12.8 6-9 6 2 High Density Slurry

(78% WT SOLIDS)
10% Cemented Hydraulic Fill
Go Under in 7days (2.5MPa UCS)
11 10 3 3 2.5 (73-75% Wt Solids)
(includes 0.9m air gap) (UCS after 7 days)
Go Under in 3days (2.4MPa UCS)
12 8 2.4-4.6 3 4.8 8% Paste (Coarse Tails)
(includes 0.6m air gap) (no free water)
(2% binder - 0.2MPa UCS 28D)
13 2-10% NO UNDERHAND AT THIS TIME 0.2-2 (5% binder - 0.8Mpa UCS 28D)
(7% binder - 1.2MPa UCS 28D)
(10% binder - 2MPa UCS 28D)